Anti-Prostitution Rule Draws Top Court Review in HIV Case

The U.S. Supreme Court, taking up a
free-speech clash, will decide whether groups that get federal
money for overseas anti-HIV and AIDS programs can be required to
take a stance against prostitution.

The justices today said they will review a decision
invalidating a federal requirement that organizations receiving
funds adopt policies opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.
The provision is part of a 2003 law that increased U.S. efforts
against infectious diseases around the world. Congress has
authorized spending of more than $60 billion under the program.

Groups including include Pathfinder International and
InterAction are challenging the provision, saying their work in
disease-ravaged countries in Africa and Asia would be
compromised if they adopted anti-prostitution policies. The
organizations say they work with prostitutes to educate them
about HIV and AIDS and to encourage prevention.

The Supreme Court has said that Congress generally can
place conditions on the receipt of federal funds. A federal
appeals court in New York said Congress went too far with the
2003 law by requiring organizations to “affirmatively say
something -- that they are opposed to the practice of
prostitution.”

Obama Appeal

In its appeal, the Obama administration said the
requirement is designed to reduce behavior that fosters the
spread of HIV and AIDS. The appeals court ruling “has
undermined the government’s ability to implement the
comprehensive approach chosen by Congress,” the government
argued.

The case is U.S. Agency for International Development v.
Alliance for Open Society, 12-10.

The case was one of six the Supreme Court added today as it
looked to fill the remaining argument slots for the nine-month
term that runs through June.

The justices also agreed to decide whether the
constitutional protection against self-incrimination applies in
the case of a Texas man being voluntarily questioned at a police
station about a shooting.

Police Questioning

The man, Genovevo Salinas, cooperated until police asked
whether shotgun shells at the scene of the crime would match a
weapon Salinas’s father had turned over to officers earlier.
Prosecutors later sought to use the younger Salinas’s refusal to
answer that question at his murder trial.

Lower courts are divided as to whether the self-
incrimination protection kicks in before a suspect has been
arrested or told he doesn’t have to answer questions.

The high court also will hear a trucking industry appeal
stemming from regulations, including environmental standards,
imposed by Los Angeles on vehicles using the city’s seaport. The
appeal contends the rules run afoul of federal transportation
law.

The industry isn’t directly challenging the environmental
restrictions in the Clean Truck Program, although a broad enough
Supreme Court ruling could threaten those regulations as well,
says David Pettit, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense
Council, which supports the measure.